The level of provocation Radford faced was nothing compared to that which Fielden was subjected to by Mason. Bailey wound Radford up within the rules of the game. Fielden was not dismissed, but Wigan still lost the game.Ian Smith was entirely correct to send Radford off for an attack at the head of a player. Fielden was banned for one match for punching an opponent. He only connected properly once, on Mason's chin. The rescinding of this one match ban handed down to Radford brings the integrity of the disciplinary panel and it's procedures into serious doubt.

The level of provocation Radford faced was nothing compared to that which Fielden was subjected to by Mason. Bailey wound Radford up within the rules of the game. Fielden was not dismissed, but Wigan still lost the game.Ian Smith was entirely correct to send Radford off for an attack at the head of a player. Fielden was banned for one match for punching an opponent. He only connected properly once, on Mason's chin. The rescinding of this one match ban handed down to Radford brings the integrity of the disciplinary panel and it's procedures into serious doubt.

No it doesn't. It was absolutely the correct decision.

"I own up. I am a serial risk taker. I live in a flood zone, cycle without a helmet, drink alcohol and on Sunday I had bacon for breakfast."

I always had my faith in the RFL Disciplinary panel, all good men, honest and true.

What say you 3owls?

Ha ha, it'll run forever this one. I think the most important factor is that the panel upheld the guilty decision, they backed the referee, they backed me, and they backed the 10%. Nothing changes, he deserved to be sent off and that's what the panel have confirmed. It's just a shame that contributors views are judged to be "contemptible" because they don't agree with a faction from this forum when in fact their views are endorsed by ex players that you cherished so dearly initially. It really doesn't bother me that his ban has been rescinded, he was sent off and the panel have subsequently decided that was punishment enough. I still think players personalities and club loyalties affected contributors judgement on this debate. Radford was sent off, he was found guilty and fined £300. If you want to describe my views as "contemptible" when they echo what the disciplinary panel have judged, that's up to you. Your view was different from the ex players on the panel, i wouldn't class it as contemptible just a different opinion to mine. See you next season as we won't be seeing you after saturday.

The level of provocation Radford faced was nothing compared to that which Fielden was subjected to by Mason. Bailey wound Radford up within the rules of the game. Fielden was not dismissed, but Wigan still lost the game.Ian Smith was entirely correct to send Radford off for an attack at the head of a player. Fielden was banned for one match for punching an opponent. He only connected properly once, on Mason's chin. The rescinding of this one match ban handed down to Radford brings the integrity of the disciplinary panel and it's procedures into serious doubt.

Last time I checked, you weren't allowed to elbow a player in the head repeatedly. But what would I know? I'm only a referee.

And you can't compare Fielden to Radford, as Radford was sent off. You can't give a Sending Off Sufficient reply to Fielden, can you? Radford's punishment came from the field of play in the form of a red card early in a game that most likely cost his team 4th place in the league and the game itself. Fielden had 10 minutes rest.

Ha ha, it'll run forever this one. I think the most important factor is that the panel upheld the guilty decision, they backed the referee, they backed me, and they backed the 10%. Nothing changes, he deserved to be sent off and that's what the panel have confirmed. It's just a shame that contributors views are judged to be "contemptible" because they don't agree with a faction from this forum when in fact their views are endorsed by ex players that you cherished so dearly initially. It really doesn't bother me that his ban has been rescinded, he was sent off and the panel have subsequently decided that was punishment enough. I still think players personalities and club loyalties affected contributors judgement on this debate. Radford was sent off, he was found guilty and fined £300. If you want to describe my views as "contemptible" when they echo what the disciplinary panel have judged, that's up to you. Your view was different from the ex players on the panel, i wouldn't class it as contemptible just a different opinion to mine. See you next season as we won't be seeing you after saturday.

It obviously bothers you because you're still determined to have little pops at Hull.

If it hadn't been Ryan Bailey, and Radford had done the same thing, then I'd still have backed him. And I've backed the other player in a confrontation with Lauaki on some occasions this year as well, so there's not always a club bias involved with me. If something's wrong, I will say if I think it's wrong.

Last time I checked, you weren't allowed to elbow a player in the head repeatedly. But what would I know? I'm only a referee.

And you can't compare Fielden to Radford, as Radford was sent off. You can't give a Sending Off Sufficient reply to Fielden, can you? Radford's punishment came from the field of play in the form of a red card early in a game that most likely cost his team 4th place in the league and the game itself. Fielden had 10 minutes rest.

Referees can only interpret situations, you've had the benefit of watching bailey/radford countless times courtesy of sky sports repeats. What is not open to interpretation is that Radford threw numerous punches to a grounded players head. Nobody really knows whether Bailey was really trying to scramble clear from the ruck, what we do know is that Radford threw intentional punches. Surely as a referee you have to punish a blatant offence ?

It obviously bothers you because you're still determined to have little pops at Hull.

If it hadn't been Ryan Bailey, and Radford had done the same thing, then I'd still have backed him. And I've backed the other player in a confrontation with Lauaki on some occasions this year as well, so there's not always a club bias involved with me. If something's wrong, I will say if I think it's wrong.

It's all about having pops on here you plonker, it's all you ever do. Get over your small town syndrome and start talking sense and then maybe other supporters won't have a reciprocal pop at you.

Last time I checked, you weren't allowed to elbow a player in the head repeatedly. But what would I know? I'm only a referee.

And you can't compare Fielden to Radford, as Radford was sent off. You can't give a Sending Off Sufficient reply to Fielden, can you? Radford's punishment came from the field of play in the form of a red card early in a game that most likely cost his team 4th place in the league and the game itself. Fielden had 10 minutes rest.

What is not to compare about the players reactions? The decisions of the respective referees were different, the behaviour of the players was consistent. Fielden was not sent off by Bentham and Wigan still lost. Radford was rightly sent off for attacking the head of an opponent, and it was his inability to control his aggression in such a high stakes game that cost him his place on the field and possibly contributed to Hull FC losing the game.The decisons of the disciplinary panel were identical for Fielden and Radford because they committed the same offence. They both reacted to provocation, Fielden to a significantly greater level than Radford, and both puched an opponent. Fielden did not have his ban overturned, nor should Radford have. The integirty of the disciplinary panel is shot to pieces after such an about turn.Bailey did not elbow Radford. At no time does Bailey use the point of his elbow to strike Radford. This is a case of Bailey being unpopular because he is capable of drawing opposing players into confrontation and does occasionally throw cheap shots. he does, however, stay sufficiently within the bounds of the rules to avoid picking up more than the odd 10 miniutes sat down.

What is not to compare about the players reactions? The decisions of the respective referees were different, the behaviour of the players was consistent. Fielden was not sent off by Bentham and Wigan still lost. Radford was rightly sent off for attacking the head of an opponent, and it was his inability to control his aggression in such a high stakes game that cost him his place on the field and possibly contributed to Hull FC losing the game.The decisons of the disciplinary panel were identical for Fielden and Radford because they committed the same offence. They both reacted to provocation, Fielden to a significantly greater level than Radford, and both puched an opponent. Fielden did not have his ban overturned, nor should Radford have. The integirty of the disciplinary panel is shot to pieces after such an about turn.Bailey did not elbow Radford. At no time does Bailey use the point of his elbow to strike Radford. This is a case of Bailey being unpopular because he is capable of drawing opposing players into confrontation and does occasionally throw cheap shots. he does, however, stay sufficiently within the bounds of the rules to avoid picking up more than the odd 10 miniutes sat down.

I can't comment on the Radford/Fielden comparisons as I didn't see the Hudds/Wigan game, unfortunately.

You put a pursuasive argument forward but having seen Bailey launch a headbutt attempt at Hull's smallest player in Sean Long, I would argue, but for good forune in him failing, he most definitely would not have stayed within the bounds of the rules. Likewise, had it not been for it being the last tackle of the RL Cup final, his landing on Wire's smallest player (is there a theme here?) Riley with his forearm would surely have had greater punishment.

I can't comment on the Radford/Fielden comparisons as I didn't see the Hudds/Wigan game, unfortunately.

You put a pursuasive argument forward but having seen Bailey launch a headbutt attempt at Hull's smallest player in Sean Long, I would argue, but for good forune in him failing, he most definitely would not have stayed within the bounds of the rules. Likewise, had it not been for it being the last tackle of the RL Cup final, his landing on Wire's smallest player (is there a theme here?) Riley with his forearm would surely have had greater punishment.

I don't have a bias either way because I don't support either club. It just worries me that the disciplinary system so clearly does not work consistently. If it weren't a Hull derby in the play offs I doubt an appeal would have been made and the ban lifted. Bailey does make a head butt movement towards Long, but luckily for him doesn't come close to connecting and he was given 10 minutes to coold down. Don't forget Bailey had 4 stitches in the cut above his eye and had to leave the field at least twice for treatment once he had returned from his rest. He did throw a cheap shot in the last tackle at Wembley, but it was a snide annoying dig, not a haymaker so it didn't merit a trip to the disciplinary. Bailey is a cheap shot niggler, but players need to learn to play him at his own game. Shame the Hulme brothers aren't still around.

I don't have a bias either way because I don't support either club. It just worries me that the disciplinary system so clearly does not work consistently.

But it is consistent. If an appeal were simply to rubber-stamp all of the original decisions there would be no point in having an appeals panel.

QUOTE

If it weren't a Hull derby in the play offs I doubt an appeal would have been made and the ban lifted.

A totally illogical statement.

QUOTE

Bailey does make a head butt movement towards Long, but luckily for him doesn't come close to connecting and he was given 10 minutes to coold down.

By his coach though, not the referee.

QUOTE

Don't forget Bailey had 4 stitches in the cut above his eye and had to leave the field at least twice for treatment once he had returned from his rest.

This is irrelevant. Such an injury could also have resulted in the normal course of play so shouldn't be really influential in the decision being made.

QUOTE

He did throw a cheap shot in the last tackle at Wembley, but it was a snide annoying dig, not a haymaker so it didn't merit a trip to the disciplinary. Bailey is a cheap shot niggler, but players need to learn to play him at his own game. Shame the Hulme brothers aren't still around.

Bailey wasn't reported by the ref, cited by the other team or summoned by the tribunal so, again, this is irrelevant to the outcome.

This is irrelevant. Such an injury could also have resulted in the normal course of play so shouldn't be really influential in the decision being made.

How is it irrelevant, was his eye cut before the punches?

It was cut by one of the punches so obviously its relevant

I await the next player whoever it may be to launch 4 punches to a prone player and get off with a fine

A lot of Yorkshiremen believe that when God created the world, he made it with perfect balance.
He balanced the hot areas with the cold areas. the dry areas with the wet areas.
And, in creating Yorkshire, he created the most glorious place on earth - full of majestic beauty and sporting giants.........and for balance he created....... Lancashire.

I await the next player whoever it may be to launch 4 punches to a prone player and get off with a fine

So the none elbows large bulge under Radfords eye was from the air passing by as Bailey tried his new windmill dance to get up Noticed also Bailey making all this effort to get to his feet untill Radford got in front of him,then duck and play preaching to allah.No they where deliberate elbows to head FULL STOP

So the none elbows large bulge under Radfords eye was from the air passing by as Bailey tried his new windmill dance to get up Noticed also Bailey making all this effort to get to his feet untill Radford got in front of him,then duck and play preaching to allah.No they where deliberate elbows to head FULL STOP

I havent mentioned Bailey nor was my post about Bailey's actions

A lot of Yorkshiremen believe that when God created the world, he made it with perfect balance.
He balanced the hot areas with the cold areas. the dry areas with the wet areas.
And, in creating Yorkshire, he created the most glorious place on earth - full of majestic beauty and sporting giants.........and for balance he created....... Lancashire.

I don't have a bias either way because I don't support either club. It just worries me that the disciplinary system so clearly does not work consistently. If it weren't a Hull derby in the play offs I doubt an appeal would have been made and the ban lifted. Bailey does make a head butt movement towards Long, but luckily for him doesn't come close to connecting and he was given 10 minutes to coold down. Don't forget Bailey had 4 stitches in the cut above his eye and had to leave the field at least twice for treatment once he had returned from his rest. He did throw a cheap shot in the last tackle at Wembley, but it was a snide annoying dig, not a haymaker so it didn't merit a trip to the disciplinary. Bailey is a cheap shot niggler, but players need to learn to play him at his own game. Shame the Hulme brothers aren't still around.

I see what you're saying, but in my personal view I was pleased to see somebody actually yuck him for once before he got chance to run away and hide behind Rob Burrow, as he usually does.

That's just me though. I'm sure Radford felt he'd let himself and the team down by reacting in the way he did.

"I own up. I am a serial risk taker. I live in a flood zone, cycle without a helmet, drink alcohol and on Sunday I had bacon for breakfast."